Justice John Macdonald’s decision fails to shed light on just how far a politician can go in speculating about corruption or wrongdoing.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s legal luck may be turning — at the most opportune time for the city’s embattled chief magistrate who faces dismissal from office in a separate conflict-of-interest lawsuit, now under appeal.

On Thursday, a Superior Court judge dismissed a $6-million defamation lawsuit brought against Ford for words he said to the Toronto Sun during the 2010 mayoral campaign.

In a separate bombshell case, next Jan. 7, Ford will appeal the court verdict removing him from office for conflict of interest. And he faces a third legal challenge over election expenses in his run for mayor.

Thursday’s 15-page decision from Justice John Macdonald is great for Ford, but it fails to shed light on just how far a politician can go in speculating about corruption or wrongdoing.

Plaintiff George Foulidis failed to make the case that Ford libeled him, Macdonald concluded, so the judge didn’t have to rule on the defences Ford offered. Among Ford’s defences — in case the judge found he defamed Foulidis — was that his words were “fair comment” and were “made in the public interest.”

Proponents of freedom of the press, free speech and freewheeling public discourse — especially during elections — had hoped those defences would have absolved Ford of any potential wrongdoing.

But Justice Macdonald concluded that Ford did not defame Foulidis, owner of the Boardwalk Pub in the Beach, when Ford told the Sun’s editorial board that a deal involving the city and Foulidis’s firm stunk to high heaven and was an example of corruption at city hall.

Ford didn’t defame Foulidis because he qualified his charges of corruption when he said “I can’t accuse anyone, or I can’t pinpoint it . . .”

A reasonable person reading the story — which the judge said accurately reflected Ford’s comments — would have concluded that Ford was speculating and did not have irrefutable proof of his claims.

“The defendant voiced only a suspicion of corruption which he, immediately and in clear terms, admitted was without factual foundation or insufficient for him to be able to say that anyone had done anything wrong,” said the judge.

“In my opinion, he clearly and explicitly prevented any defamatory meaning being perceived in his suspicion of corruption.”

Foulidis’s lawyers proved Ford spoke the words and was responsible for them being published, but failed to prove they were directed at Foulidis and were defamatory, Macdonald said in his judgment.

For one, Foulidis had earlier been found guilty of fraud in another case involving his family business and tried to mislead the court about it, Macdonald said. This ruined his credibility. Secondly, his official role in the Beach restaurant at the centre of the libel action is in question, even in Ontario ministry documents, again adding to his lack of credibility. Finally, Ford did not directly link Foulidis with the café.

Foulidis may be correct to claim that a reference to Tuggs (the holding company for the restaurant) and the 20-year deal it received from city council is a reference to him, but he is not the sole owner of the restaurant and he failed to prove he is “the face of Tuggs.”

Having failed to prove two of the four essential factors to win the case, the judge said he didn’t have to rule on whether Ford was justified in making his controversial claims.

Justice Macdonald concedes that if a higher court considers his views as incorrect, the whole case could be retried.

In skirting the “fair comment” issue, Justice Macdonald robbed observers of a crucial addition to the body of jurisprudence that guides us on how far politicians can go in making claims during an election.

What he did outline is an extraordinary faith in the wisdom of the average reader to distinguish campaign palaver and wild accusations from fact.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.